This is a document prepared by a Subgroup of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee on Ozone/Particulate Matter/Regional Haze Implementation Programs. The Subgroup is composed of members of the Coordinating Committee, the National and Regional Strategies Work Group (NRSWG), and the Base Programs and Policies Work Group (BP&PWG). Members are Bill Becker, Nina Dougherty, Larry Feldcamp, Steve Gerritson, Richard Hayslip, and David Hawkins. The Subgroup was facilitated by David Mobley and supported by Robin Dunkins and Nancy Mayer. It is not an EPA document. This document has not been thoroughly reviewed by the Work Groups or Coordinating Committee and is subject to further discussions by the Subcommittee.

PROGRESS DURING SIP DEVELOPMENT ISSUE PAPER

Date: August 5, 1997

Status: Final for the Subcommittee

Contact: Nina Dougherty representing NRSWG, 801/581-8771, FAX 801/581-3632

Introduction

This paper addresses issues associated with progress requirements during the period of time after the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS's) are promulgated and up to when the State Implementation Plan (SIP) has been approved by EPA. After the SIP is approved, it is presumed that reasonable further progress requirements for O3 and PM and further progress for haze provisions should apply. The areas covered by this paper include all areas that have a high probability of violating or contributing to a violation of the new/revised standards for ozone and PM-fine. This paper does not address any changes to Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) for current nonattainment areas as described in the Interim Implementation Policy (IIP).

Note: The Progress During SIP Development issue paper is linked to the NAAQS Implementation Diagram (June 3, 1997), Reasonable Further Progress issue paper (May 28, 1997), the Control Strategies issue paper (June 2, 1997), the Special Applications of Economic Incentives issue paper (March 31, 1997), the Incentives for Reducing Emissions from Area & Mobile Sources issue paper (June 2, 1997), the Reward and Sanctions issue paper (February 13, 1997), the Transportation Conformity issue paper (May 30, 1997), the New Source Review issue paper (November 15, 1996), the Reasonable Further Progress Metrics paper written by Alan Krupnick (October 16, 1996), and the Reasonable Further Progress Requirements in the Areas of Influence (AOI)/Area of Violation (AOV) thought piece by Don Theiler (October 8, 1996) as well as the original version of this issue paper, Pre-SIP RFP (March 28, 1997), and the previous edition of the Progress during SIP Development issue paper (June 3, 1997). Readers are encouraged to refer to these papers for additional insight. However, the impact of the Presidential Directives, which were issued with the new NAAQS on July 18, 1997, has not been fully evaluated with respect to this paper.

Background

EPA has proposed an implementation strategy under which an area could postpone designation as nonattainment until three years of ambient data are collected. After an area is designated as nonattainment for an ambient standard, EPA intends to allow an area up to three years to develop and submit an implementation plan to bring the area into attainment with the standard. A major difference in requirements for the new NAAQS versus the requirements defined in the CAA for the existing NAAQS is the reduction of ozone precursor emissions (i.e., VOC) during the first six years as required by Section 182. This period included the time that an area had to develop and implement its SIP. For the new standards, the Act does not require any reductions by an area for at least six years, or until after SIP approval.

It has been argued that some progress should be made during the time period before SIP approval. The IIP requires certain measures for existing ozone nonattainment areas that will remain in violation; however, the IIP does not apply to new areas violating the new NAAQS or areas impacting existing nonattainment areas that are not themselves designated nonattainment. The focus of progress requirements in this issue paper is on areas which are in attainment under the "old" NAAQS but would be in nonattainment under the "new" NAAQS. It is recognized that several ongoing national programs will result in improved air quality. These include the MACT and acid rain programs as well as national mobile source emission reductions and new rules promulgated pursuant to Section 183 of the CAA. However, it is also recognized that there may be additional measures beyond those currently underway that could provide greater air quality improvements.

Issues

1. When should Progress begin?

Option 1 - The NAAQS promulgation date.

Option 2 - The date the AOV's or nonattainment areas are proposed.

Option 3 - The date the AOV's or nonattainment areas are finalized.

Option 4 - The date of preliminary AOI designation.

Option 5 - The date of final AOI designation.

Option 6 - The dates the RAMPS are set up.

It was generally agreed that the need for progress during SIP development begins when the NAAQS are promulgated.

2. Where should Progress apply?

Option 1 - Nationwide.

Option 2 - Within XX miles of monitored NAAQS violations.

Option 3 - AOVS, nonattainment areas and areas likely to violate the standard.

Option 4 - Preliminary AOI.

Option 5 - Final AOI.

It was generally agreed that the need for progress applies Nationwide with emphasis on areas that contribute to a violation of the standard.

3. What will Progress be?

Option 1 - Nothing additional [IIP+MACT+ acid rain program (See the Control Strategies issue paper for a list of National measures currently in place or being developed.)]

This option alone was not deemed viable as it was generally agreed that some further progress should be expected. It was presumed that the new NAAQS would require additional measures to address issues associated with the new standards.

Option 2 - National measures (EPA adopted measures)

It was generally agreed that EPA should be charged with pursuing appropriate National measures for the new NAAQS (without the necessity of the Subgroup or the FACA Subcommittee specifying exactly what they should be.) It was presumed that National measures currently being developed were not intended to address PM-2.5 specifically, or have control measures designed for PM-2.5, and that such measures should be examined. It is also presumed that appropriate national measures will be defined via the protocol outlined in the Control Strategies Issues paper to identify national, prescribed or discretionary measures.

Option 3 - State planning efforts.

It was generally agreed that State/local planning efforts should be required in conjunction with RAMP activities. This includes:

- Gather resources/hire people

- Emission inventory development

- Air quality modeling activities

- Monitoring network deployment

Option 4 - Encourage early reductions through an economic incentive program.

While everyone seems to favor certain incentives and some voluntary measures, the environmental community felt that there should also be emission control requirements for States. Thus, this option alone was not deemed viable. Although incentive programs can be required, this approach does not assure emission reductions desired by the environmental community. Further, it is presumed that the Rewards and Sanctions Issue paper as well as the three Economic Incentive issue paper adequately cover this area.

Option 5 - Extend IIP requirements to more areas (i.e., current reduction program under Section 182 - 3 percent per year until attainment).

It was generally agreed that extending the IIP would not adequately address PM-2.5 issues. Thus, this option was not deemed viable. It was assumed that new ozone problem areas and all PM-2.5 problem areas would need to be covered by provisions under these progress requirements. In this regard, it should be noted that progress was not linked to a specific percent reduction or targeted reduction requirement.

Option 6 - Liability for State Emission Reductions (States would incur liability for emission reductions from an early baseline date, similar to the 15% VOC reduction required by 1996 by the 1990 CAAA.)

It was generally agreed that this option did not have appeal to any of the Stakeholders. The environmental community desired immediate reductions while States and industry generally did not want a liability requirement which may or may not coincide with ultimate control requirements.

Option 7 - Required State Emission Reduction Measures (States would be required to

adopt and implement rules requiring emission reductions.)

It was generally agreed that progress should include implementation of State/local control measures prior to approval of the SIP; however, the nature and extent of these controls should vary with the specific circumstances of a local or regional air quality situation. Specifically,

a.	If an area has been designated as nonattainment or AOV, then the preliminary AOI or nonattainment area would be expected to implement (or show why implementation would not be beneficial) a prescribed list of measures. It is presumed that an appropriate list of prescribed measures would be available which is dependent on whether an area is dominated by local, transport, or combination thereof as well as the severity of the problem. (Note: Reference the NAAQS Implementation Diagram and the Control Strategies Issue Paper.) It is also presumed that RAMP activities will have been underway for some time such that the nature of an area's problem (source and severity) should be reasonably apparent. It is also presumed that a list of measures can be identified which would logically be included in any SIP and that EPA supports timely implementation through model rules and CTG's.

b.	For areas which are highly probable to be designated as nonattainment or AOV, then emission reductions should be pursued in an expeditious and prudent manner. Such measures should include:

i.	Any regional control recommended by a RAMP, Preliminary AOI, or regional planning body.

ii.	Market-based strategies and/or control requirements which States may voluntarily pursue.

Under the circumstances, it is presumed that RAMP activities have been underway and that significant data and information exist to indicate and characterize a problem; however, this data and information may not conform to all the requirements to enable designations (e.g., non-FRM data) or regulatory action. In this situation, it is presumed that the monitoring guidelines and plans would target these areas for initial monitor deployment and, thus, early or accelerated designation. It is further presumed that areas, which are suspected to be close to the standard, will have sufficient motivation to implement voluntary or incentive measures to avoid designations and subsequent requirements. Any reductions achieved through these measures should be creditable to any progress requirements provided they satisfy specifications of SIP guidelines. It is also presumed that these measures, as well as decisions on conformity and NSR, would consider the probable designation. Such considerations should address impacts on ambient air quality and health effects. It is also presumed that responsible public health officials will not delay implementation of control measures if action is only awaiting receipt of 3 years of FRM data.

c.	If an area does not have data and if there is not an adequate indication that the area will violate the standard or contribute to a violation, then no controls would be expected in such situations. However, it is presumed that those areas would participate fully in State planning and RAMP activities. Further, national control measures from Federal regulatory activities would be expected. In addition, it is expected that areas which are suspected to be close to the standard would have sufficient motivation to implement any incentive measures necessary to avoid being designated and/or to maintain healthy air for their citizens.

4. Authority for Progress requirements.

Option 1 - PSD.

Option 2 - Section 110(a)(2)(H).

Option 3 - Section 126

Option 4 - Section 172(c)

It was generally agreed that this issue should be referred to OGC.

5. Should the policy approach to Progress for PM, regional haze and ozone be treated the same or differently?

Option 1 - Yes, to have consistency.

Option 2 - No, because ozone has more information than PM/regional haze.

It was generally decided that the policy elements of "progress" should be the same for PM, ozone, and regional haze; however, it is apparent that the timing of implementation will differ. In addition, the approach to progress seems equally applicable to reasonable further progress requirements under ozone and particulate matter programs and reasonable progress requirements under haze programs.

Summary

It was generally agreed that Progress should include:

1.	State planning activities in conjunction with RAMP activities after the NAAQS are promulgated.

2.	Pursuit of appropriate Federal control measures after the NAAQS are promulgated.

3.	Implementation of appropriate State/local controls prior to completion of the designation and SIP submission and approval process; however, the nature and extent of these controls should vary with the specific circumstances of a local or regional air quality situation.